Re: [HTTP-in-RDF] Revised simplified approach (2)

Hi Shadi,

Also welcome back from my side ;-)

In the whole issue of the HTTP-in-RDF review, I raised also a point in
regard to possible redundancy of classes in our last telecon:

<http://www.w3.org/2007/08/08-er-minutes#item01>

in regard to overlapping  of earl:Content and http:Content (and
subclasses). I do not think we shall go this direction, because we may
originate confusion.

To avoid circular references between EARL and HTTP, I would move Content
outside these namespaces, so we could have a general Content class, not
tied to HTTP or any other protocol. Within this scope, we could also
tackle the issue of a generic uri property for this class.

Furthermore, like Johannes, I do not think subclassing http:Content
belongs to the context of HTTP-in-RDF. Maybe, to this new namespace ...

regards,
carlos

Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Johannes Koch wrote:
>>
>> Welcome back
> 
> Thanks! ;)
> 
> 
>> Shadi Abou-Zahra schrieb:
>>> Thanks for reworking this, it looks good to me. One question though,
>>> the http:Message class reminds me very much of the RFC 822 work that
>>> we have dropped a while ago. I'm not arguing to revive this work (or
>>> namespace)
>>
>> Really? ;-)
>>
>>> but do you think we could clean it up to become an extension point?
>>>
>>> For example if we move http:body up into the http:Message and remodel
>>> http:httpVersion (not sure how though) then the http:Message
>>> resembles pretty much an rfc822:Message (and anyone who needs it can
>>> extend it).
>>
>> You mean something like:
>>
>> foo:Message
>> |- 0..1 foo:headers
>> |- 1 foo:body
>>
>> http:Message extends foo:Message
>> |- 1 http:httpVersion
>> |- 0..1 dc:date
>>
>> foo:headers ((Collection of) foo:MessageHeader)
>> foo:body ((rdf:Alt of) foo:Content)
>>
>> with Content (with subclasses), MessageHeader, HeaderName,
>> HeaderElement, Param and their properties moving to the foo namespace?
> 
> No, no, no, I'm *really* not trying to revive RFC822 (disguised as foo)!
> I think we could have something like this:
> 
> http:Message
> |- 0..1 http:headers
> |- 0..1 http:body
> |- 0..1 dc:date
> 
> This should now resemble an RFC822 message. Now say someone wants to
> create SMTP-in-RDF or whatever, they could do something like this:
> 
> smtp:Mail rdfs:subClassOf http:Message
> 
> (if they don't like the "http" they can use any other shortname)
> 
> ...what I'm trying to get at, is that maybe some minor tweaks could make
> this piece reusable to others without much work for us. I don't know how
> to make http:httpVersion though, and if it's worth the effort to go down
> this route at all. What do others think?
> 
> Regards,
>   Shadi
> 
> 

-- 
Dr Carlos A Velasco
  Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology (FIT)
  BIKA Web Compliance Center - http://access.fit.fraunhofer.de/
  Schloss Birlinghoven, D53757 Sankt Augustin (Germany)
  Tel: +49-2241-142609 Fax: +49-2241-1442609

Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2007 07:54:21 UTC